Meadows v. Palmer

D. Maryland

Meadows v. Palmer

33 F.R.D. 136, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 649, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10363

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland

DecidedJuly 1, 1963

DocketCiv. No. 13943

StatusPublished

This text of 33 F.R.D. 136 (Meadows v. Palmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meadows v. Palmer, 33 F.R.D. 136, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 649, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10363 (D. Md. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Edward Meadows objects to interrogatory No. 18 of defendant which asks:

“Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than minor traffic violations ? If the answer is in the affirmative state, where, when and for what offense?”

Objection overruled. An interrogatory to a party designed to elicit facts which may be used in cross examination to affect credibility of that party is a proper subject of discovery. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), ¶26.16[1], p. 1182-3; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 647, p. 77, and! cases cited thereunder in both tseatises.. See also Rediker v. Warfield, S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 125, 128, citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Edward Meadows objects to interrogatory No. 18 of defendant which asks:

“Have you ever been convicted of a crime, other than minor traffic violations ? If the answer is in the affirmative state, where, when and for what offense?”

Objection overruled. An interrogatory to a party designed to elicit facts which may be used in cross examination to affect credibility of that party is a proper subject of discovery. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), ¶26.16[1], p. 1182-3; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 647, p. 77, and! cases cited thereunder in both tseatises.. See also Rediker v. Warfield, S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 125, 128, citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 F.R.D. 136, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 649, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadows-v-palmer-mdd-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack